1. According to Justice O\'Connor, when are damages available in cases involving
ID: 350733 • Letter: 1
Question
1. According to Justice O'Connor, when are damages available in cases involving student on student harassment? 2. Why did Justice Kennedy disagree with the majority's opinion in this case? 3. What is the significance of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education? Page 1 of4 DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION 526 US 629 (1999) FACTS Title IX, like Title VI, prohibits sexual harassment by peers as well as by supervisors. LaShonda Davis, a fifth grader at Hubbard Elementary School in Monroe County, Georgia, was confronted with sexual harrassing behavior by G.F., a classmate, who repeatedly tried to touch her breasts and genitals, rubbed his body against hers and made such remarks as "Iwant to feel your boobs. LaShonda told her mother and her classroom teacher about these incidents. When the harassment continued, the mother spoke to the teacher who assured her that the principal had been informed. By now, LaShonda was no longer G.F.'s only target. She and several other girls sought an appointment with the principal and were rebuffed. The school took no disciplinary action against the boy. His harassment worsened to the point that LaShonda could not concentrate on her studies and wrote a suicide note. The incidents stopped only after G.F. was charged with sexual battery. LaShonda's mother, Aurelia Davis, sued the Monroe County Board of Education (the "Board")on behalf of her fifth grade daughter LaShonda, alleging that school officials failed to prevent LaShonda's suffering sexual harassment at the hands of another student. Davis claimed that the school's complacency created an abusive environment that deprived her daughter of educational benefits promised her under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 Title 1X). Davis lost at the lower court level and she then appealed the case to the Supreme Court. JUSTICE O'CONNOR DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT There is no dispute here that the Board is a recipient of federal education funding for Title IX purposes. Nor do respondents support an argument that student-on-student harassment cannot rise to the level of "discrimination" for purposes of Title IX. Rather, at issue here is the question whether a recipient of federal education funding may be liable for damages under Title IK under any circumstances for discrimination in the form of student-on-student sexual harassment. We must determine whether a district's failure to respond to student-on-student harassment in its schools can support a private suit for money damages. This Court has indeed recognized an implied private right of action under Title IX, see Connon v. University of Chicago and we have held that money damages are available in such suits, Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992). Because we have repeatedly treated Title IX as legislation enacted pursuant to Congress authority under the Spending Clause, private damages actions are available only where recipients of federal funding had adequate notice that they could be liable for the conduct at issue. When Congress acts pursuant to its spending power, it generates legislation "much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions." We disagree with respondents' assertion, however, that petitioner seeks to hold the Board liable for G. F.'s actions instead of its own. Here, petitioner attempts to hold the Board liable for its own decision to remain idle in the face of known student-on-student harassment in its schools. In Gebser, we concluded that a recipient of federal education funds may be liable in damages under Title IX where it is deliberately indifferent to known acts of sexual harassment by a teacher The language of Title IX itself-particularly when viewed in conjunction with the requirement that the recipient have notice of Title IX's prohibitions to be liable for damages-also cabins the range of
Explanation / Answer
1. According to Justice O'Connor, when are damages available in cases involving student on student harassment?
Damages are available in cases involving student on student harassment when
(1) Schools are deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment of which they have actual knowledge of misconduct (the harassment happens in a context subject to the school's control and authority has control over the harasser)
(2) The harassment is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it deprives the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits offered by the school
2. Why did Justice Kennedy disagree with the majority's opinion in this case?
Issues with Title IX
Practical difficulties
Practical difficulties in ensuring numerous immature students conform to the school norms and in ensuring the same control standard across schools. Schools have limited resources and some lack resources even serious problems of violence
3. What is the significance of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education?
The Davis decision raised many questions as well as challenges and changes in the schools
The decision will also invite a tide of similar suits. Schools now will have to learn from organizations to prohibit harassment.They will have to establish new policies regarding harassment recognition, investigation guidelines and disciplinary action
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.